1 2025:CGHC:44309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1083 of 2025 Tamradhwaj Gayakwad S/o Shri Ghanaram Gayakwad Aged About 33 Years R/o Satyam Vihar Colony, Raipura, Gali No. 03, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Bhuvi Gayakwad D/o Shri Tamradhwaj Gayakwad Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Jyoti Gayakwad, W/o Shri Tamradhwaj Gayakwad, R/o E.W.S. 1967-1968 Housing Board, Industrial Area, Bhilai Police Station Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 (ΑNNEXURE A-1), passed by the Learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Presided over by Smt. Himanshu Jain) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1685/2022 "Bhuvi Gayakwad Vs Tamradhwaj Gayakwad", in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant Tamradhwaj Gayakwad with Jyoti Gayakwad was solemnized on 30.06.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Village Mudpar, District Bemetara, and out of their wedlock the Respondent was born. It is alleged that since the birth of a female child, Jyoti Gayakwad was subjected to taunts and ill-treatment by the applicant and his family members on account of the child being female and also for non-fulfillment of their dowry demands. Thereafter, the Respondent, through his mother, filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, contending that the applicant is in government service and financially well capable. The applicant filed his reply denying the allegations and contended that the mother of the Respondent, being employed as a Staff Nurse with a higher salary than him, is competent to maintain the child. Upon consideration, the Learned Family Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, partly allowing the application and granting maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Family Court is contrary to 3 the facts and evidence available on record and suffers from serious infirmities. The Learned family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and failed to take into account the material aspects of the case. It has been completely overlooked that the mother of the Respondent is employed as a Staff Nurse in the State Government, drawing a higher salary than the applicant, and is therefore well capable of maintaining the minor Respondent, whereas the applicant himself has limited income and is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents. Despite this, the Learned Family Court has erroneously awarded maintenance on the higher side in favour of the Respondent without considering the financial condition and obligations of the applicant. The impugned order thus reflects an arbitrary approach, passed without due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, and hence is illegal, unjust, and liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by both the parties, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, granting maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the Respondent who is a child of the applicant. The Family Court has correctly appreciated the fact that the Respondent, being a minor child, is entitled to be maintained by the applicant, who is under a statutory as well as moral obligation to 4 provide for the welfare and upbringing of his child. The Court has also rightly assessed the financial status of the applicant, who is employed in government service, and has accordingly awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance keeping in view the needs of the child and the standard of living of the parties. The order of the Learned Family Court, therefore, is just, proper, and in consonance with the settled principles of law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan